1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the lease agreement, dated 21.7.2008, entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, had been cancelled by the impugned proceedings, dated 6.2.2012, issued by the second respondent, without prior notice having been issued to the petitioner. Since the second respondent had not followed the principles of natural justice before cancelling the lease agreement, by his order, dated 6.2.2012, the said proceedings is arbitrary illegal and void.

3. It has been further submitted that the lease agreement, entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, is for a period of five years, from 21.7.2008 to 20.7.2013. However, the second respondent has terminated the lease, without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, on the allegation that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to certain third parties, contrary to Clause 11 of the lease agreement.

4. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent